> consist entirely of people that support banning non-approved ideas that the real world considers non-controversial

What's an example?

Given the fact the comment you replied to is flagged and dead? Apparently even mentioning that some ideas online may not have widespread support offline.

I thought HN predicted it would fold due to mismanagement, and arguably it would've if it hadn't been delayed by being rolled into the larger Katamari ball of securities fraud that is SpaceTeslaXAI.

And while it hasn't disappeared, it's losing ground to Pinterest.

> And while it hasn't disappeared, it's losing ground to Pinterest.

Is it? I haven't seen a Pinterest link in a while so I guess it depends on what bubble you're in.

If you're not hanging out with a lot of Gen Z women it would explain why it's not on your radar, that's their key demo and they're on a very solid growth trajectory[1].

It's no secret, meanwhile, that twitter has seen steady declines both in daily active users as well as plummeting engagement levels from those that haven't left yet.

[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/pins-gains...

Who or what is fediverse? How do you think it works?

It's a network of social media sites aka servers that are independently run, and have no algorithm so posts are in chronological order usually. There's several types of sites, each replacing one conventional alternative like mastodon for x/Twitter and Lemmy for reddit.

It works because the sites belonging to one type can all see the content of other sites of the same type. To the user, each individual site is as convenient as a conventional social media site such as x/twitter. It aims to combine the advantages of decentralization such as independence, with the advantages of centralization such as a large amount of content

One roadblock is marketing, because the first thing the fediverse sites like mastodon or Lemmy try to do when you search for them on Google is get you into a server. That sounds too technical and is not how the average person uses social media at all. Bluesky fixes this and has an entirely new idea for how the fediverse works.

One downside to the concept of servers is that besides feeling fragmented to the average user compared to bluesky or Instagram, most tend to cater to a specific audience so they filter content for you. It's not like bluesky or Instagram where the user does it entirely from scratch by following accounts (which Instagram ignores anyways)

I know what this is, I was seeing if whatthesmack understands the concept. He clearly has some deep confusions where he lists Fediverse as among the list of services that are block happy. It does not conceptually make sense to call Fediverse as being block happy anymore than saying http or ssl is block happy.

> It works because the sites belonging to one type can all see the content of other sites of the same type.

That's how it should work but its not how it works in practice because some admin can't stand the idea of opinions contrary to their own existing on the same network. So they deferedate from instances they don't like as well as those instances that don't do the same.

Yes, and? That's how it should work. That's the very point of it, you control your environment as you want. If you don't like someone, remove them. There is no single instance, that's the very point, its conceptually completely absurd to say a set of protocols is "block happy". Why do you feel entitled to other peoples computing real estate? There is no single "Mastodon", go and make your own and connect or don't connect to who you want.

You don't control the environment, some admin does who you cannot get away from without giving up your identity. And even if you self-host its pretty rich to say you control your environment without addressing that the community thinks its acceptable into bullying other instance operators into compliance with their witch hunts.

How is it the protocol's fault if people dislike you? You have literally no right to other peoples computing resources. Nothing in the protocol is stopping you from self hosting an instance. Its not like making another Twitter or Facebook, the software is readymade for you to install. So its frankly absurd to say a technical protocol is block-happy.

>they tend to consist entirely of people that support banning non-approved

..meanwhile, X is owned by such a person.

Elon censors people all the time